I enjoyed the article and agree with the central themes, but it succumbs to at least a couple of the “chicken scratches” railed against. Spelling and grammar mistakes (’Calligraph’, 'wwhat’, couple others), using more words than needed for given idea, and repetition.
Also for proper treatment “code beauty” section should have same weight as the scratches (they have equal weight in title but are drastically mismatched in the content). I’m guessing you ran out of steam toward the end. Letting it sit for a day or two and editing before posting, or dividing into two articles, might have helped.
Getting to the substance: the only part I contest, lightly, is on deriding comments. The context and experience level/background of the future code reader is important. Yes well written code in a high level language doesn’t need to be explained, just read the code!
…but that only works if the future contributor/maintainer can read at that level. For a literary analogy: is the reading audience generalized (newspapers, blogs), a specialized academic journal, or native tongue is another language?